Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download

Comparison Overview

FEV eDLP GmbHFEV eDLP GmbH
VS
TeslaTesla
FEV eDLP GmbH

FEV eDLP GmbH

Auf der Sonnenseite 1, Sandersdorf-Brehna, Sachsen-Anhalt 06792, DE

Last Update: 21/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.fev-edlp.com
747/1000Moderate

Die FEV Gruppe ist weltweit vertreten und entwickelt Motoren und Antriebssysteme vom Konzept bis zur Serie. Wir bieten abwechslungsreiche Aufgaben und Karrierechancen in kreativen Teams. Unsere Kunden sind namhafte Hersteller in Europa, Amerika und Asien. In unserem Unt...

NAICS:3361
NAICS Definition:Motor Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees:0
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Tesla

Tesla

13101 Harold Green Rd, Austin, Texas, US, 78725

Last Update: 07/10/2026

View Profile
797/1000Fair

Tesla is accelerating the world’s transition to sustainable abundance. To achieve our mission, we're building a world powered by solar, enabled by battery storage and transported by electric vehicles. We’re committed to hiring and developing top talent from around the...

NAICS:3361
NAICS Definition:Motor Vehicle Manufacturing
Employees:92,621
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
5

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
FEV eDLP GmbH

FEV eDLP GmbH

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA
Tesla

Tesla

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for FEV eDLP GmbH in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

Tesla has 98.02% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - FEV eDLP GmbH (X = Date, Y = Severity)

FEV eDLP GmbH cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Tesla (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Tesla cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
FEV eDLP GmbH

FEV eDLP GmbH

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Tesla

Tesla

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
ADITESLOUGOO1791405129
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
TES1772642704
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
TES113031125

FAQ

Between FEV eDLP GmbH company and Tesla company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between FEV eDLP GmbH company and Tesla company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between FEV eDLP GmbH company and Tesla company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between FEV eDLP GmbH company and Tesla company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between FEV eDLP GmbH company and Tesla company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between FEV eDLP GmbH company and Tesla company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between FEV eDLP GmbH company and Tesla company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between FEV eDLP GmbH company and Tesla company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between FEV eDLP GmbH company and Tesla company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between FEV eDLP GmbH company and Tesla company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between FEV eDLP GmbH company and Tesla company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between FEV eDLP GmbH and Tesla, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between FEV eDLP GmbH and Tesla, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - FEV eDLP GmbH or Tesla ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - FEV eDLP GmbH or Tesla ?
Between FEV eDLP GmbH and Tesla, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between FEV eDLP GmbH and Tesla, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-22061
SUMMARY

Trident versions v25.02.1 through v26.06.1 are susceptible to a vulnerability that could allow an authenticated attacker with access to debug logs to view LUKS passphrases or SMB Active Directory credentials.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-09
UPDATED
Date2026-10-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-108269
SUMMARY

Remote Attestation TLS Clients provides multi-language utilities for verifying attested TLS connections. Prior to 0.5.0, the Rust and Go RA-TLS challenge verifiers accepted quote ReportData that was bound to the certificate public key and client nonce but not to the active TLS session before permitting application traffic. An attacker who obtained an enclave TLS private key could relay a genuine quote onto another connection, causing the clients to accept an attacker-terminated connection as the attested enclave. This issue is fixed in 0.5.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-09
UPDATED
Date2026-10-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-108268
SUMMARY

Enclave OS Virtual runs container workloads inside confidential virtual machines with end-to-end attestation. Prior to tdx-v0.2.43 and tdx-gpu-v0.6.27, the TDX/GPU RA-TLS certificate issuer placed the certificate public-key hash and client nonce in quote ReportData but omitted a value bound to the active TLS session. An attacker who obtained an enclave TLS private key could relay a genuine quote onto another connection, causing a relying party to accept an attacker-terminated connection as the attested enclave. This issue is fixed in tdx-v0.2.43 and tdx-gpu-v0.6.27.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-09
UPDATED
Date2026-10-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-108267
SUMMARY

Privasys Go is a maintained fork of the Go programming language that adds RA-TLS support to crypto/tls. Prior to privasys-v0.5.1-go1.26.5, challenge-mode RA-TLS certificates bound quote ReportData to the certificate public key and client nonce but not to the active TLS session. An attacker who obtained an enclave TLS private key could relay a genuine quote onto another connection, causing a relying party to accept a handshake terminated by the attacker as an attested enclave connection. This issue is fixed in privasys-v0.5.1-go1.26.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-09
UPDATED
Date2026-10-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-92705
SUMMARY

Aegisub is a cross-platform advanced subtitle editor. From 3.2.0 to 3.4.2, Aegisub automatically loads Automation scripts referenced by `Automation Scripts` metadata in `ASS` subtitle projects without asking whether the user trusts the scripts or their authors. An attacker can distribute a crafted `ASS` file together with a referenced malicious Automation script, and opening the `AS`  file executes arbitrary code with the privileges of the Aegisub process. From 3.4.0 to 3.4.2, inconsistent handling of embedded `NUL` characters between extension validation and filesystem operations additionally allows a crafted `ASS/Lua` polyglot to reference and execute itself as a single-file variant. The vulnerability is fixed in Aegisub 3.5.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-09
UPDATED
Date2026-10-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8